Can an Ohio judge answer phones, sit on a VIP panel, or solicit donations during a public charity telethon?

Plain-English summary

The Board answered three questions about a judge's participation in a charitable telethon that raises funds from the general public. It started from Canon 5B, which lets a judge take part in civic and charitable activities, as limited by Canon 5B(3), which bars a judge from soliciting funds or lending the prestige of the office for fund-raising, except for solicitations limited to members of an organization to which the judge belongs.

On answering a "VIP telephone line," the Board concluded the judge would be permitting the use of the office's prestige for fund-raising even though only processing donations, because the very purpose of a VIP panel is to encourage viewers to donate to a cause a prominent community member appears to support. On anonymously answering the general telephone bank, the Board concluded this is also prohibited, because telethon phone banks are typically televised, many viewers would recognize the judge (especially in smaller communities), and even an unrecognized judge would be too closely involved in the fund-raising; a request not to be televised would not cure the Canon 5B(3) problem.

On soliciting friends and coworkers, the Board concluded this is barred by Canon 5B(3), and the narrow members-only exception does not cover a blanket request to friends and coworkers. The Board surveyed consistent authority from Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida, contrasted Alabama's more permissive opinion, and emphasized (citing the Canon 5A commentary and its own Opinions 90-16 and 87-009) that the result does not discourage civic involvement generally; a judge must simply avoid conduct that can be construed as soliciting funds.

Currency note

The Ohio Board flags this opinion as a "Former CJC Opinion" interpreting the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct effective March 1, 2009.

This opinion issued in 1995. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct before relying on any specific provision mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a judge answer phones at a charity telethon?

A: No. The Board concluded a judge may not answer telethon telephones, whether on a VIP line or anonymously at the general phone bank, because doing so lends the prestige of the office to fund-raising in violation of Canon 5B(3).

Q: Does it help if the judge asks not to be on camera?

A: No. The Board concluded that participating in a telethon, regardless of media exposure, still falls under the Canon 5B(3) prohibition on solicitation of funds by judges.

Q: Can a judge solicit donations from friends and coworkers for the charity?

A: No. The Board concluded this is barred by Canon 5B(3); the only exception is soliciting fellow members of an organization the judge belongs to, which does not cover a blanket request to friends and coworkers.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5B (civic and charitable activities) and Canon 5B(3) (limits on a judge soliciting funds or lending the prestige of the office), with reference to the Canon 5A commentary.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5B, Canon 5B(3)

Other opinions cited:

• Ohio BPC Ops. 90-16 (1990), 87-009 (1987)
• Texas Comm. on Judicial Ethics Op. 76-16; Louisiana Op. 32; Georgia Op. 37; Florida Op. 86-14; Alabama Op. 88-325

See also

• Ohio BPC Op. 1990-016: Judge as Trustee of a Scholarship Foundation
• Ohio BPC Op. 1987-009: Retired Judge and a Fund-Raising Restoration Committee
• Ohio BPC Op. 1989-029: Probate Judge on a Community Mental Health Board

Source

• Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
• Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op-95-013.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804

                                             OFFICE OF SECRETARY




                                          OPINION 95-13
                                      Issued December 1, 1995

[Former CJC Opinion-provides advice under the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which is superseded by the
Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. 3/1/2009.]

SYLLABUS: A judge may not participate in a fund-raising telethon to the general public; this
includes answering telephones during the telethon to accept donations from callers, being a
celebrity guest or member of the telethon's "VIP telephone panel," or soliciting donations for the
organization hosting the telethon.

OPINION: We have before us your request regarding a telethon which raises funds from the
general public for a charitable organization. What are the guidelines for a judge's participation in
such telethons? Your specific questions are as follows:

   1.    May a judge answer a "VIP telephone line" during a telethon to the general
         public;

   2.    May a judge anonymously answer telephones at the telethon's telephone bank;

   3.    May a judge solicit funds from his or her friends and coworkers for the
         organization hosting the telethon?

Canon 5B of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct allows a judge to "participate in civic and
charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon his [her] impartiality or interfere with the
performance of his [her] judicial duties." Canon 5B (3) limits the scope of a judge's participation in
fund-raising.

   Canon 5B (3) A judge should not solicit funds for any educational, religious,
   charitable, fraternal, or civic organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of
   his [her] office for that purpose, except he [she] may participate as a member in
   solicitations limited to members of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or
   civic organization of which he [she] is a member, and he [she] may be listed as an
   officer, director, or trustee of such an organization. He [she] should not be a speaker
   or the guest of honor at an organization's fund raising events, but he [she] may
   attend such events.

Op. 95-13 2

With regard to the first question, if a judge were to answer a "VIP telephone line" during a fund-
raising telethon, he or she would be permitting the use of the prestige of the office for the purpose
of raising funds. This is true even though the judge technically is not soliciting funds, but only
processing donations from callers. The very purpose of a "VIP telephone panel" is to encourage
viewers to donate to a cause which a well-known member of their community appears to support.

With regard to the second question, because of the potential for a judge's prestige to influence
contributors, a judge may not anonymously answer telephones for a fund-raising telethon's
telephone bank. This is prohibited for two reasons: first, the mere appearance of the judge may
lend the prestige of the office to the telethon, and second, the judge is too closely involved with the
fund-raising aspect of the organization hosting the telethon.

It is common in most telethons for the telephones to be set up onstage, and for the volunteers
covering the telephones to be televised throughout some or all of the telethon. Many viewers
would recognize a judge if he or she were on this panel, even if the judge were not identified by
name or given any special attention. This is especially true in smaller communities, where it is
likely a judge would be widely recognized. A judge in a metropolitan area might be less widely
recognized, but would also be lending the prestige of the office to the telethon, even if only some of
the viewers recognized him or her.

A judge might request that he or she not be televised at all, but this would still be unacceptable
under Canon 5B (3). Participating in a telethon, regardless of the judge's media exposure, still falls
under the Canon 5B (3) prohibition of solicitation of funds by judges. That canon was discussed in
this Board’s Opinion 90-16 stating that “[j]udges should be insulated from the fund-raising as far as
practicable." See Ohio SupCt, Bd of Comm’rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op.90-16 (1990).
See also Ohio SupCt, Bd of Comm’rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 87-009 (1987). Telethons
are the epitome of fund-raising, existing solely for the purpose of soliciting funds from viewers. If
a judge participated in a telethon in any way, other than by making a donation, it would be
impossible for him or her to be insulated from the fund-raising aspect of the telethon.

With regard to the third question, a judge may not solicit donations for the organization from
friends and coworkers. This is prohibited by Canon 5B (3). The narrow exception to the
Op. 95-13 3

prohibition is that if a judge is a member of an organization he or she may solicit funds from other
members of that organization. A judge's blanket request for donations from friends and coworkers
would not fall within this exception.

This Board is not alone in its view regarding a judge's participation in telethons. Most states that
have addressed this issue advise that a judge should not be involved in this type of activity. See
e.g., State Bar of Texas, Comm. on Judicial Ethics, Op. 76-16 (1976) (a judge may not be a
celebrity auctioneer during a telethon); Louisiana SupCt, Comm. on Judicial Ethics, Op. 32 (1976)
(a judge may not serve on a VIP panel during a telethon); Georgia, Judicial Qualifications
Comm’n, Op. 37 (1980) (a judge may not appear on television or radio programs on which
donations are solicited); and Florida SupCt, Comm. on Standards of Conduct Governing Judges,
Op. 86-14 (1986) (a judge should not participate in a public radio station's pledge drive). Cf.
Alabama, Judicial Inquiry Comm’n, Op. 88-325 (1988) (a judge may serve as chairman of a
telethon and appear on the program at the beginning and the end to introduce and do a wrap-up; the
judge primarily will be behind the scenes, will not be identified as a judge, and will not personally
make any direct requests).

Because of the high status of judges in the community, they are often asked to participate in various
fundraisers and charitable causes. It is not the intent of this opinion to discourage a judge's
involvement in civic and charitable activities. The Commentary to Canon 5A expressly states:
"Complete separation of a judge from extra-judicial activities is neither possible nor wise; he [she]
should not become isolated from the society in which he [she] lives." However, a judge must be
careful not to be involved in any conduct that may be construed as solicitation of funds. Serving on
a telephone bank during a fund-raising telethon must be avoided.

In conclusion, this Board advises that a judge may not participate in a fund-raising telethon to the
general public; this includes answering telephones during the telethon to accept donations from
callers, being a celebrity guest or member of the telethon's "VIP telephone panel," or soliciting
donations for the organization hosting the telethon.

Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are
informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions regarding
the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, the
Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Attorney's Oath of Office.